Nitromater
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Not an NHRA event, but the NHRA is included in the law suit
- Thread starter Mr. Fix It
- Start date
clwill
Nitro Member
Because NMCA was using NHRA rules, and the chassis was certified by an NHRA tech. It's a real tragedy that she fell victim twice, once on the track and again to a bunch of ambulance chasing lawyers. There will be no winners here except the law firm of Dewey, Cheetum, and Howe. 
FABMAN
Nitro Member
I agree with Chris, in lawsuits there's always a winner the Lawyer's pocket book.
This will never go to trial, the insurance companies will get together in the Lawyer's conference room and set at the mahogany high gloss finish table and figure out who owes what and after lawyers get their 50% plus expense's the case will be close. Charlie and Race track will lose their insurance and ultimately
be forced to close their business due to high cost of a new insurance if they are able to get it.
I do have concerns about car builder, these are high hp cars and run at high mph, take a look at the door glass, corners were cut in building this car I would think that's where most concerns are at.
This will never go to trial, the insurance companies will get together in the Lawyer's conference room and set at the mahogany high gloss finish table and figure out who owes what and after lawyers get their 50% plus expense's the case will be close. Charlie and Race track will lose their insurance and ultimately
be forced to close their business due to high cost of a new insurance if they are able to get it.
I do have concerns about car builder, these are high hp cars and run at high mph, take a look at the door glass, corners were cut in building this car I would think that's where most concerns are at.
Last edited:
Many years ago, I was dismayed to learn that many of my brother in law high profile corporate trial lawyer's friends were people I would refer to as high profile ambulance chasers .... it takes two to tango. Why have someone take responsibility for their own actions when you can have 1/3 of the take standing in court getting a jury to feel sorry for them. And if nobody sues, then there is no need for defense ....
HEMI6point1
Nitro Member
To be honest, if the car wasn't up to proper spec but they let it run anyway, then she has a legit gripe....
Tumbleweed
Nitro Member
Was a waiver signed by driver / crew? We always have to sign them and turn them in.......
clwill
Nitro Member
Here is my take on this, fully prefaced with "I am not a lawyer" and "I am not an insider in this case" (aka I'm a certified "keyboard expert"):
1) The waiver is barely worth the paper it is written on, you can't sign away the right to sue someone else for their negligence. All of the waivers and things in the rulebook provide merely speed bumps to competent attorneys, sadly.
2) As I understand it, the car was up to spec at the time it was built and raced. The rules regarding driveshaft protection were put in as a result of this incident, not before it.
3) My guess is that her lawyers will argue that the defendants (NMCA, NHRA, the race car manufacturer, the poor tech guy) should have known she was at risk, based upon previous incidents, or some such. This would constitute negligence, and would be the basis for the suit.
This is all so sad. She was maimed, and that has to be terrible. But virtually every line in the rulebook was created as the result of someone's misfortune. Things people didn't expect to see happened, and measures were taken to prevent them from happening again. In fact, that's what happened in this case: rules were quickly put in place to prevent a recurrence. The vast majority of people for whom these terrible things happened were satisfied with the knowledge that steps were taken to prevent them from happening to others.
Unfortunately, in this case, the poor victim has been convinced by some hot-shot attorney that there is also free money to be had. "This will never go to court, the insurance companies will settle, no one will get hurt, not the NHRA, not the tech guy. Only the big insurance companies will get hurt, and it means free money for you. With all your pain, don't you deserve that?"
As I said, it's so sad. Because in point of fact, we will all pay. Both in higher premiums and in fewer and fewer companies willingness to participate (both as insurers and as suppliers) in the sport we love.
1) The waiver is barely worth the paper it is written on, you can't sign away the right to sue someone else for their negligence. All of the waivers and things in the rulebook provide merely speed bumps to competent attorneys, sadly.
2) As I understand it, the car was up to spec at the time it was built and raced. The rules regarding driveshaft protection were put in as a result of this incident, not before it.
3) My guess is that her lawyers will argue that the defendants (NMCA, NHRA, the race car manufacturer, the poor tech guy) should have known she was at risk, based upon previous incidents, or some such. This would constitute negligence, and would be the basis for the suit.
This is all so sad. She was maimed, and that has to be terrible. But virtually every line in the rulebook was created as the result of someone's misfortune. Things people didn't expect to see happened, and measures were taken to prevent them from happening again. In fact, that's what happened in this case: rules were quickly put in place to prevent a recurrence. The vast majority of people for whom these terrible things happened were satisfied with the knowledge that steps were taken to prevent them from happening to others.
Unfortunately, in this case, the poor victim has been convinced by some hot-shot attorney that there is also free money to be had. "This will never go to court, the insurance companies will settle, no one will get hurt, not the NHRA, not the tech guy. Only the big insurance companies will get hurt, and it means free money for you. With all your pain, don't you deserve that?"
As I said, it's so sad. Because in point of fact, we will all pay. Both in higher premiums and in fewer and fewer companies willingness to participate (both as insurers and as suppliers) in the sport we love.
Here is a decent link from a sports insurance company. Explains what is takes to have a good waiver and how the courts consider them in view of their particular state's "public policy" concerns.
Are Waiver Release Agreements Worth Paper They Are Written On?
That said, I'm pretty sure no state will allow a waiver to cover "gross negligence" (generally they can only cover negligence, at most, are a designed to create a contractual relationship which can help in court). This will be an interesting case to follow, although the likelihood of it having a public outcome has to be extremely rare.
I am pretty certain that the waivers all state that the racer takes full responsibility for the safety of their own car and that anything the organization does is "incrementally" determine if the car poses an undue risk to other competitors, workers or spectators.
Sam, I think that car had made a fair number of runs in its current configuration ... doesn't the owner have the responsibility to make sure that their maintenance cycle is adequate?
The current front driveshaft enclosure rule resulted largely from this accident. It is a great rule, but that doesn't mean that someone was wrong before the rule existed.
Are Waiver Release Agreements Worth Paper They Are Written On?
That said, I'm pretty sure no state will allow a waiver to cover "gross negligence" (generally they can only cover negligence, at most, are a designed to create a contractual relationship which can help in court). This will be an interesting case to follow, although the likelihood of it having a public outcome has to be extremely rare.
I am pretty certain that the waivers all state that the racer takes full responsibility for the safety of their own car and that anything the organization does is "incrementally" determine if the car poses an undue risk to other competitors, workers or spectators.
Sam, I think that car had made a fair number of runs in its current configuration ... doesn't the owner have the responsibility to make sure that their maintenance cycle is adequate?
The current front driveshaft enclosure rule resulted largely from this accident. It is a great rule, but that doesn't mean that someone was wrong before the rule existed.
Last edited:
clwill
Nitro Member
Jeff, thank you for that great link. A fine point: according to someone who is close to the team (posting on another forum) this was the car's 10th pass.
I feel bad that she got hurt, but I think when a driver straps in, he/she accepts the risks. Maybe I'm wrong, but there's an almost endless number of things that can happen on a run, that may have not happened before. There are just too many ways that human error and mechanical failure can cause a problem for racing to be risk-free. But because of the litigious nature of the world today, we now have fuel cars racing to 1000ft with all kinds of driver input being done without the driver. I can see the side of the argument regarding the car being teched, but again, when you strap in, you've had every opportunity to make sure you're comfortable with the car and how it's prepared.
Jim
Nitro Member
The lawyer for the plaintiff, no doubt, took this on as a contingency matter.
He has some substantial time and $$ costs (i.e. filing, investigation, and travel and expert witness stuff). He takes some risk - Given the injuries (not the liability) he's placing a bet the insurance company will settle at-some-point.
On the other side: NMCA, Zmax, and NHRA have to pay PLENTY to put together a defense, then, make a risk / reward decision as to how far they want to go. There are insurance companies involved but, probably also, self-insured companies which affect the willingness to settle versus setting a precedent in court. The point is, it costs a LOT of money whether they WIN or LOSE. There would probably be FEWER lawsuits if we instituted a "Loser Pays" system (Like that'll ever happen<G>)
Obviously, waivers (and personal responsibilty) don't count for much when there's so much money (and hellacious injury) involved.
He has some substantial time and $$ costs (i.e. filing, investigation, and travel and expert witness stuff). He takes some risk - Given the injuries (not the liability) he's placing a bet the insurance company will settle at-some-point.
On the other side: NMCA, Zmax, and NHRA have to pay PLENTY to put together a defense, then, make a risk / reward decision as to how far they want to go. There are insurance companies involved but, probably also, self-insured companies which affect the willingness to settle versus setting a precedent in court. The point is, it costs a LOT of money whether they WIN or LOSE. There would probably be FEWER lawsuits if we instituted a "Loser Pays" system (Like that'll ever happen<G>)
Obviously, waivers (and personal responsibilty) don't count for much when there's so much money (and hellacious injury) involved.
Last edited:
Crew Chief Pro
Nitro Member
Doesn't matter if it wasn't up to specs. The Waiver actually is a very powerful anti suit device. Everyone thinks that it isn't worth the paper but IT IS. It has been challenged many times, and never has someone been able to sue and win in court. The insurance companies may have settled but nobody has been able to win an actual court case.
This is a throw it on the wall and see what sticks case. Shame on her for even trying, I lost all respect for her and her family because of it. They are useless people in my mind. Once you strap on the belts YOU TAKE FULL RESPONSIBILITY.
Last edited by a moderator:
Jim
Nitro Member
I was involved as a regional volunteer 15 years ago with my national fraternity and during that time the fraternity was involved in a couple lawsuits as named defendants. In one a male student jumped on the hood of a friends car, when the friend hit the brakes, the student slid off head first into a brick wall sustaining a brain injury. The two students involved were not members of any fraternity. They sued the school and every Greek org on campus because Greek Week activities were going on at the time of the accident, even though the accident happened no where near those events. In another case a fraternity brother snuck his girlfriend up to his room, she had to climb up a trellis and onto a porch roof and through a window to gain access to the room. During the night she fell off the top home made bunk bed sustaining injuries including brain damage. It was against the rules (school and fraternity) to have overnight guests and to have home made bunk beds, but they still sued the school and fraternity.
In both cases the fraternity was able to be removed as defendants from the suits, but it still cost well over $10,000 for each case to do so. That was just expenses as the lawyers did not charge for there time as they were fraternity brothers. The girl who fell off the bed ended up suing her BF's parents against their homeowners insurance, and they told her to do so. They ended up getting married and he got expulled from the fraternity.
When stuff like this happens they sue everybody and hope that some of it sticks. Similar to when a drunk driver gets pulled over, not only are they charged for DWI, but usually get cited for things such as failure to stay in marked lanes, speeding, failure to signal, etc. Even if they get out of the DWI, the other things stay on their record and their insurance goes up etc
In both cases the fraternity was able to be removed as defendants from the suits, but it still cost well over $10,000 for each case to do so. That was just expenses as the lawyers did not charge for there time as they were fraternity brothers. The girl who fell off the bed ended up suing her BF's parents against their homeowners insurance, and they told her to do so. They ended up getting married and he got expulled from the fraternity.
When stuff like this happens they sue everybody and hope that some of it sticks. Similar to when a drunk driver gets pulled over, not only are they charged for DWI, but usually get cited for things such as failure to stay in marked lanes, speeding, failure to signal, etc. Even if they get out of the DWI, the other things stay on their record and their insurance goes up etc
glofria
Nitro Member
I suspect that this will go the way of Rance McDaniels NHRA News: Top Fuel veteran McDaniel injured at Nightfire event (8/12/2002) who sued NHRA, Firebird Raceway, the car owner, the crew chief, the car owner's dad, and everyone else his attorney could think of.
The ruling was in favor of the defendants. He got nothing.
Bottom line is there are high risks in doing this activity and when you sign your name on the license, entering the gate, on the tech card, etc. you assume all risks. I consulted Bobby McLennan after everything was over and he couldn't emphasize having the driver sign the tech card enough.
Sorry for this woman's injuries, but this is not the right way of going about it.
The ruling was in favor of the defendants. He got nothing.
Bottom line is there are high risks in doing this activity and when you sign your name on the license, entering the gate, on the tech card, etc. you assume all risks. I consulted Bobby McLennan after everything was over and he couldn't emphasize having the driver sign the tech card enough.
Sorry for this woman's injuries, but this is not the right way of going about it.
Silly Savage
Nitro Member
Also a tricky situation when you have a hired driver or you are the hired driver....friendships can and will be tested.
